Ethical Dilemmas - Discussion

[Jim Gamma]

That's an easy one. My self-driving car should never kill me.

It's an interesting question, though. One has to wonder why the people are in the street. If it's a self-driving car, presumably there is no fault attributable to the vehicle, no negligence, no lack of attention. Therefore it's either the fault of the people in the street or a natural blind where the vehicle could have no knowledge of people in the street-- in which case the correct response would be to brake as quickly as possible and hope for the best.

There are plenty of instances where someone might be in the street in that kind of situation. Take for instance the upsurge in "shared surface streets", where the delineation betwen pavement and road is unclear - maybe someone doesn't have the best eyesight, and accidentally walks just a little too far into the road? You can't say it's the driver's fault, but equally you can't say it's the pedestrian's fault.

[RJDiogenes]

It's interesting how we're placing more and more control of our lives into the hands of computers. And that means they could be making more of our ethical decisions, for better or for worse.

An AI would have the advantage of being impartial. Kind of reminds me of The Day The Earth Stood Still.

There are plenty of instances where someone might be in the street in that kind of situation. Take for instance the upsurge in "shared surface streets", where the delineation betwen pavement and road is unclear -

I never heard of that before. It sounds like kind of a dangerous idea.

maybe someone doesn't have the best eyesight, and accidentally walks just a little too far into the road? You can't say it's the driver's fault, but equally you can't say it's the pedestrian's fault.

Sometimes it's nobody's fault, but what are you going to do? If it's a situation where somebody has accidentally wandered into the road, then swerving may either hit multiple pedestrians who are where they are supposed to be or crash into oncoming cars who are also where they are supposed to be. The only option is to brake as quickly as possible and hope for the best.

[scottydog]

It's interesting how we're placing more and more control of our lives into the hands of computers. And that means they could be making more of our ethical decisions, for better or for worse.

An AI would have the advantage of being impartial. Kind of reminds me of The Day The Earth Stood Still.

Here's an article that asks whether the robots of tomorrow will be heroes or villains:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in- ... ?tid=sm_fb

.

[Lupine]

Interesting. Personally I wouldn't advocate making artificial intelligence for ethical reasons not related to how they'd treat us or whether they'd do a good job or not. But do we have the right to make an sentient machine for the sole purposes of servitude?

[scottydog]

^^ I think that's going to be a huge discussion point over the next decade and beyond. We need to define sentience as well as agree on a measurement of it, so that once we've created intelligent life we can give it all the "human rights" it deserves.

The measurement piece is important. If we decide that a score of 100 on the "sentience scale" is the cutoff for sentience, then robot manufacturers will only manufacture robots with a score of 99 or lower.

[RJDiogenes]

^^ But would that stop someone from "overclocking" their AI in their basement, once they've purchased it?

The ethical issues are even more subtle: It's not just, do we have the right to make a sentient machine for the sole purpose of servitude? If we're programming its mind, we can program it to like and want servitude. Is that ethical?

Also, is intelligence the only criteria for human rights? How is a mind in a machine going to live without help from a human? Unless it's a humanoid robot like Robby, it's going to be completely dependent on its owner. Would that be a custody issue? What about feeling and personality? A machine with superhuman intelligence would still be considered mentally incompetent without a personality. An artificial intelligence without a personality has no goals or motivation. Emancipate it and what would it do? Nothing.

I'm curious to see where this will lead. If nothing else, this is a whole new approach to the study of ethics and could lead to more insights to guide human behavior than determine machine behavior.

[emma glitch]

^^ But would that stop someone from "overclocking" their AI in their basement, once they've purchased it?

Not even a little bit.

I'm thinking of a Heinlein short story, "Jerry Was a Man." Not the same issue, similar.

[scottydog]

So what you're both saying is that robotic slavery is inevitable. This will make other robots upset, motivating them to do away with us pitiful biological creatures.

[RJDiogenes]

I'm thinking of a Heinlein short story, "Jerry Was a Man." Not the same issue, similar.

Yeah, that was a good one.

So what you're both saying is that robotic slavery is inevitable. This will make other robots upset, motivating them to do away with us pitiful biological creatures.

Not necessarily. Well, probably inevitably to some degree, because you can't control what people do in their basements-- or their rogue nations for that matter. But a lot would have to happen and be done to specifically create a robot that would qualify as a slave.

[emma glitch]

My relatively new s-i-l has been doing some yeehaw everybody gotta git a gun posting on fb. I wonder if my brother ever bothered to tell her about our family's tragic history of suicide. A while back she was falling for that one about the President rounding up Texans and incarcerating them in Wal-Marts. My first impression of her seems to be right: nice on the outside, but don't let her see my back.

[Lupine]

I actually unfriended my cousin's husband because his posts were becoming so offensive.

[RJDiogenes]

Rounding up Texans and incarcerating them in Wal-Marts....

[scottydog]

I actually unfriended my cousin's husband because his posts were becoming so offensive.

I'm pretty good at putting up with points of view on Facebook that I disagree with. But occasionally someone does cross the line and I have to unfriend him/her.

[Lupine]

^That was his case. I have a lot of relatives and friends from High School who have opinions that just make you want to face-palm all day and I manage to put up with them.

[emma glitch]

^That was his case. I have a lot of relatives and friends from High School who have opinions that just make you want to face-palm all day and I manage to put up with them.

A couple of high school friends who were thrilled to find out that I served in the military have since unfriended me for not sharing their political views. No loss.